Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by peregren 1635 days ago
If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused?

And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.

2 comments

It does suck that in OP's case they caught the wrong end of this. But again, that's why you carry your own insurance with your own coverage. You're not just paying for the literal indemnification of auto damages, you're paying for the cost of litigating and proving facts in court in various hypothetical scenarios. As the other poster said, cops don't determine fault. You have to go court for that.

As somewhat of an aside, since I think a lot of people don't realize this: Most of the time attempting to allocate blame in auto accidents is a massive waste of resources and time. Insurance companies usually just settle with each other before even getting to court unless the claim involves big $. Even if you were 0% at fault, your insurance company is still incurring some cost to process the claim. Their assessment of your risk is still going up (as it should). They're still going to up your premium. The whole fault concept is just not helpful to the actual functioning of the industry, most of the time. In some states they just got rid of fault altogether, for exactly this reason.

> And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.

Yeah, a risk that in this case, did not pay off. So why is this guy whining all over this thread that he got "scammed" when he knew it was a risk?

> If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused?

Because the "other party is 100% at fault" is actually determined by courts, rather than the cops, hence the need for lawsuit.